50 participants, here’s the dialog part. Such dialogue holds out the possibility of direct insight into the collective movement of thought, rather than its expression in any particular individual.
To talk about something meaningfully, the speaker must be beyond the subject. Like, I’ve been there, I’ve experienced a lot, and I’ve found a way how to transcend the limitations of this state AND move on.
To draw actionable benefits from such meaningful speech, the listener must have an actual experience of the state, deep (thorough) enough to make the listener able to recognize at least key milestones referred to by the speaker.
Without these two conditions met, a local soap opera is happening in which neither party knows really anything of essence. If you want to see this in real life, watch daily news. The reporting persons have not experienced anything of the story, and their only part is to read a tale provided by editors who have not experienced anything of the story. The viewer (aka coach potato) won’t learn anything from this. Time killed, an impression of “important things” happening checked, and the self-serving state of “knowing” how the society is functioning achieved. Empty minds talk to empty minds who will relay the empty message to other empty minds, multiplying absurdities on the way.
Scientists excel in this game of “I know and I’ll tell it so that you could know”. Hours go by, waves of words contaminate the space, Life Energy is dissipated and lost for good. Finally, the interested (really?) parties can say, “Enough, I’ll retire in a few days’ time. My whole life seems empty. What will I do when I am free to do nothing?”
The covid game was a unique opportunity to make a real breakthrough in human consciousness. A lot of insightful medical professionals started to see deeper threads in their education. Many of them spoke publicly and contributed to the emergence of the new medical view. In the beginning. Now, four years down the line, not a single person from this group is doing anything valuable. All of them, literally all of them fell back into their taught grooves and now they are sooo busy carving out private niches and capitalizing on the 2020-2024. Astonishing. So may things have changed, yet, nothing has changed. It’s far from being intelligent. No wonder that almost everybody is easily falling for the “artificial intelligence” lie: the new god of time killers.
If a speaker feels like he has been somewhere unique, or he is there now, and always; he most likely also knows that a mere verbal model of that sense cannot transmit anything of it. He may not be able, or language cannot transmit the limitations, but he might be able to indicate what those limitations are, or what they look like. Just saying it directly, or blatantly will be rejected.
The rejection will be in the form of another verbal model, of why "it does not compute" to the receiver. Then, if there is patience, one must investigate the component words of the rejection statement. What are the assumptions behind each of those key words? Are they just conventional wisdom blindly adopted? Do they hold water, or is it just a sieve of ideas. So if the listener wants to understand, and sees the foundation is questionable, will he dig under those assumptions to find something solid? (Or find that nothing is solid?)
Maybe everything you bring to your understanding is just yesterday's conditioning, so it can only lead in these circles. What is the way out? Is there a simpler method of looking, perhaps without condemning or praising, without judging or describing. Just let it be, and see where it hits you. If I say you are divided inside in your pursuits, that is not my teaching, nor my opinion. It is a pointing of where to look for limitations. You can say "oh no, I am not divided", and try to prove it. Or say I am less divided than everyone else. - So what?
Or you can just look, that yes I am divided, and look, it is here and here and here also. Then you can ask (yourself) what caused me to be divided like this? Am I working against myself? What is the nature of contradiction and conflict? Is there a way to undo it, or can I just stop creating it?
Yes, time is killed, ultimately boring, but it staves off the uneasiness for a while. It is true, that you have to shun killing-time to see any deeper. It takes attention, and that requires the conservation of energy.
We are “limited” in two basic ways. One is the (time-) linear development of our mental capacity. Today we are more skillful in mental structuring than yesterday, due to a number of contributing factors. The most obvious is probably passive exposure to more external stimuli and inputs. Whether we can meaningfully process new information is a different story.
The other is the compounding understanding: we build more insights and deeper insights based on earlier and simpler information. Whenever a person appears who skips intermediate steps and jumps from illiteracy to expert manipulation of words, we call it magic (in different synonyms) and we do our best to push such people out of our mediocrity ways. So, the gradual escalation of understanding seems to be the primary way to become more of oneself.
Both are hows, kind of technical views of how we grow into the understanding of this reality. And both are natural. Because the search for (meta or ultimate) meaning is a personal trait, some of us have it and value it, to others it is irrelevant or unnecessary.
So far, nobody has managed to create a successful “school of understanding” which would produce more insightful individuals. All such attempts result(ed) in growing scholarly knowledge, progressively deviating from real-life applications to dogmatic fantasies and finally becoming empty mental aerobatics. Personal fortunes are grown there, but solutions cannot be allowed, as they would inevitable result in the outflow of followers or, even worse, these followers creating competitive schools. We can see this trend everywhere, from education to science. What a waste of non-recoverable Life energy.
To talk about something meaningfully, the speaker must be beyond the subject. Like, I’ve been there, I’ve experienced a lot, and I’ve found a way how to transcend the limitations of this state AND move on.
To draw actionable benefits from such meaningful speech, the listener must have an actual experience of the state, deep (thorough) enough to make the listener able to recognize at least key milestones referred to by the speaker.
Without these two conditions met, a local soap opera is happening in which neither party knows really anything of essence. If you want to see this in real life, watch daily news. The reporting persons have not experienced anything of the story, and their only part is to read a tale provided by editors who have not experienced anything of the story. The viewer (aka coach potato) won’t learn anything from this. Time killed, an impression of “important things” happening checked, and the self-serving state of “knowing” how the society is functioning achieved. Empty minds talk to empty minds who will relay the empty message to other empty minds, multiplying absurdities on the way.
Scientists excel in this game of “I know and I’ll tell it so that you could know”. Hours go by, waves of words contaminate the space, Life Energy is dissipated and lost for good. Finally, the interested (really?) parties can say, “Enough, I’ll retire in a few days’ time. My whole life seems empty. What will I do when I am free to do nothing?”
The covid game was a unique opportunity to make a real breakthrough in human consciousness. A lot of insightful medical professionals started to see deeper threads in their education. Many of them spoke publicly and contributed to the emergence of the new medical view. In the beginning. Now, four years down the line, not a single person from this group is doing anything valuable. All of them, literally all of them fell back into their taught grooves and now they are sooo busy carving out private niches and capitalizing on the 2020-2024. Astonishing. So may things have changed, yet, nothing has changed. It’s far from being intelligent. No wonder that almost everybody is easily falling for the “artificial intelligence” lie: the new god of time killers.
If a speaker feels like he has been somewhere unique, or he is there now, and always; he most likely also knows that a mere verbal model of that sense cannot transmit anything of it. He may not be able, or language cannot transmit the limitations, but he might be able to indicate what those limitations are, or what they look like. Just saying it directly, or blatantly will be rejected.
The rejection will be in the form of another verbal model, of why "it does not compute" to the receiver. Then, if there is patience, one must investigate the component words of the rejection statement. What are the assumptions behind each of those key words? Are they just conventional wisdom blindly adopted? Do they hold water, or is it just a sieve of ideas. So if the listener wants to understand, and sees the foundation is questionable, will he dig under those assumptions to find something solid? (Or find that nothing is solid?)
Maybe everything you bring to your understanding is just yesterday's conditioning, so it can only lead in these circles. What is the way out? Is there a simpler method of looking, perhaps without condemning or praising, without judging or describing. Just let it be, and see where it hits you. If I say you are divided inside in your pursuits, that is not my teaching, nor my opinion. It is a pointing of where to look for limitations. You can say "oh no, I am not divided", and try to prove it. Or say I am less divided than everyone else. - So what?
Or you can just look, that yes I am divided, and look, it is here and here and here also. Then you can ask (yourself) what caused me to be divided like this? Am I working against myself? What is the nature of contradiction and conflict? Is there a way to undo it, or can I just stop creating it?
Yes, time is killed, ultimately boring, but it staves off the uneasiness for a while. It is true, that you have to shun killing-time to see any deeper. It takes attention, and that requires the conservation of energy.
.
So true.
We are “limited” in two basic ways. One is the (time-) linear development of our mental capacity. Today we are more skillful in mental structuring than yesterday, due to a number of contributing factors. The most obvious is probably passive exposure to more external stimuli and inputs. Whether we can meaningfully process new information is a different story.
The other is the compounding understanding: we build more insights and deeper insights based on earlier and simpler information. Whenever a person appears who skips intermediate steps and jumps from illiteracy to expert manipulation of words, we call it magic (in different synonyms) and we do our best to push such people out of our mediocrity ways. So, the gradual escalation of understanding seems to be the primary way to become more of oneself.
Both are hows, kind of technical views of how we grow into the understanding of this reality. And both are natural. Because the search for (meta or ultimate) meaning is a personal trait, some of us have it and value it, to others it is irrelevant or unnecessary.
So far, nobody has managed to create a successful “school of understanding” which would produce more insightful individuals. All such attempts result(ed) in growing scholarly knowledge, progressively deviating from real-life applications to dogmatic fantasies and finally becoming empty mental aerobatics. Personal fortunes are grown there, but solutions cannot be allowed, as they would inevitable result in the outflow of followers or, even worse, these followers creating competitive schools. We can see this trend everywhere, from education to science. What a waste of non-recoverable Life energy.